« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

No Daylight Between My Position and the GOP on Earmarks

There is no daylight between my position and Speaker-designate John Boehner on earmarks. Period.

I have repeatedly said that I agree with, applaud, and wholeheartedly support Speaker-designate John Boehner’s position on earmarks. I am opposed to earmarks. I recently made that point to a reporter from a Capitol Hill newspaper, but it was left out of their story on the GOP and earmarks.

Some media outlets are trying to show divisions within the Republican Conference at every opportunity. Like a family, differences of opinions may exist from time to time, but in the end, Republicans are committed to standing together for the American people. Our desire is to support the will of our constituents who called for limited government and adherence to the Constitution as demonstrated in early November.

Last March, I enthusiastically endorsed my party’s decision to swear off earmarks. Earmarks are a root contributor to Washington’s spending addiction. Now more than ever, as our nation approaches $14 trillion in debt, we need to tighten our belt and earmarks are a great place to dry up funding.

I do, however, believe increased transparency needs to be brought to funding requests. I believe some transparency has been brought to the process since the earmark moratorium took effect, but we must continue to strive to do better.

Before the appropriations process was corrupted by earmark-style spending, an orderly and Constitutional process for funding requests existed. Committee hearings laid out requests through the legislative process as intended by our Founding Fathers. These hearings took place in the light-of-day and were recorded for the American people.

Recently, porking has gotten way out of control. The stimulus bill is an obvious example of lawmakers’ unrestrained spending which was put together behind closed-doors, away from the eyes of the American people (and the minority party for that matter).

Our nation is a democratic republic for a reason: Congress is not meant to cede spending authority to the Executive Branch. Nor should transportation spending be left to a select few at the Department of Transportation and the committee staff for Transportation and Infrastructure. Requests for funding transportation projects should go through an open and transparent process in Congress, without sway by political affiliation.

I am a Constitutional Conservative through-and-through and I will continue to stand by the earmark moratorium and that stand goes hand-in-hand with my desire to see Congress return to an orderly, Constitutional and transparent process. As we enter the 112th Congress, it’s time to revisit the funding process and remember how it was truly designed in our founding document, the Constitution.

COMMENTS

  • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

    …then it’s a position I an endorse. This is what corporations do: Lower and middle management make requests of upper management, who then approve these requests. The final budget is approved by the Board of Directors. It is zero-based, with no automatic increases. It requires justification and review.

    Heck, if Congress did budgetng this way, there’d be no time to write idiotic laws telling me whether I an or can’t pick up a migrating bird’s feather, or forcing me to buy services I may not want!

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Would endorse subjecting competing transpo projects to IRR analysis to determine who gets what? If so, where would you set the minimum MAR?

    • refudiateobama2012

      If Rep. Bachmann can write in easily understood terms, why can’t you? Using acronyms may make you sound smart, but it doesn’t do much for communications.

      Since when do any government projects get measured by Internal Rate of Return (IRR) or Minimum Acceptable Return (MAR)? Unlike in a business, with government spending there is no “return” on any money spent on projects. Return On Investment is a key determinant for spending in a business, but with government, not at all.

      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        SO if you don’t base your allocation of money on return on investment, who gets it? Somebody we both think is a nice guy?

        If we don’t make an objective measurement of how these things get decided it will be no more moral decent than pResident Obama’s Purkulus bill. Either we measure these things intelligently, or we might as well hand them out using a Oiuji Board.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          You want investments? Go sign up for eTrade.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            I’m not suggesting that Repreesntative Bachman go instruct the Treasury to buy 100 shares of AT&T. What I am suggesting, and for some reason taking SAM fire over, is that she require the appropriators measure the amount of benefit we get in return for these expenditures and use that as a criterion to decide who gets what.

            Otherwise, we might as well put a US map on the wall and throw darts at it. Without an ideological nuetral cost/benefit ratio or rate of return measure, what the GOP does with appropriations will be just as corrupted and criminal as the Obama Stimulus Visigoth Holiday.

          • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

            Which is why I don’t follow the OP’s point. Elected politicians are uniquely unqualified to make decisions based on actual merit. They will always be trying to pay back their constituents or lobbyists and will start with that and justify their desired projects in a biased way.

            At least agencies can use objective criteria as you suggest and be somewhat removed from the elected politicians and their constituencies who donate money to the campaigns.

          • Common_Cents

            That’s the problem.

            their incentive is just that, political gain. they are not incentivised to achieve economic return on behalf of citizens.

        • Mark Malcolm

          to say if we don’t do it your way there is no sensible way.

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      …the term “investment”. I’m the one who compared this to a corporation’s capital expenditure budgeting process.

      She did use the term “transparency”, which I fully support, and suggested using a process wherein spending must be justified. Not every smart expenditure is going to show a clearly defined economic, NPV/IRR/whatever other measure you want to use return. The Interstate System seems like a complete waste–until one considers how much economic activity flows over it every second, which isn’t measured in any IRR calculation.

      This process, as illustrated here, is something any conservative can get behind if we continue to hold our representatives accountable.

  • azgirl

    then I expect both you, and soon to be Speaker Boehner, to vote against the tax compromise deal that is being pushed by Obama and the Senate Republicans. Reid released the bill last night, and it is filled with earmarks. I mean really…ethanol subsidies, money for wind mill farms and film production companies, and tuna in American Samoa? Give me a break. We do not have the money for this. The spending must end.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      If she’s going to end earmarks once and for all in the House, worrying about one more earmark-laden bill is pretty weak.

      • Jim Tomasik

        I’ve totally missed the “once and for all part” of the earmark reform.

        I thought it was all about an “earmark moratorium”.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • johnt

      Mr & Mrs, as in investments, family business, personal profit, and of course said profit subsidized by the little folk.
      I wonder what the nut tells herself to justify this,umm, theft. Legal naturally.

  • C.S. McCoy

    You can get around this problem by eliminating federal funding of transportation projects (and hopefully reducing the tax burden by an equal amount). Let the states fund these projects with their own money. They’re probably better than the federal government at determining where the real needs are anyways. Even if states collect an equal amount in taxes for transportation projects it will therefore be spent more efficiently.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • Spotter

      And I’m strangely glad someone else beat me to this point. Imagine what would happen to our transportation costs if the funding didn’t have to take a side-trip through Washington, D.C.!

      • Mark Malcolm

        if it stayed in the states.

  • danielbdp

    azgirl has it right.

    I believe I speak for others in this blog, saying we have no doubts about your commitment to Conservative principles and love for our country.

    We need you, and soon to be Speaker Boehner, to vote against the tax compromise deal on the Principle of, once and for all, demanding the TRANSPARENCY you speak of – if someone wants an ethanol subsidy (after the science, which is completely “SETTLED”, has demonstrated IT DOESN’T WORK!), then let it stand on its own merits. Same for the other cited pieces of political bribery…

    WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with politicians’ promises of “cleaning up waste and corruption” in governrnent, and then tolerating this kind of bribery (euphemistically referred to as “sweeteners”) to go on!

    Please stand with Sen. Jim DeMint and other congressional patriots, in demanding REAL change in the Congress!

    WE THE PEOPLE KNOW the saner, more patriotic 112th Congress will be able to quickly hammer out a fairer, Principled legislation (not a compromise in principle) and we won’t fault you for taking that Principled Stand.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    That wasn’t addressed at all in the OP. In fact, the language used here is the same as Big Porkers. “We shouldn’t cede spending power to the executive” that is a canard / red herring if ever there was.

    The executive’s job is to carry out and implement laws and yes, that includes funding laws. Executive agencies are set up with the specific purpose of administering funding requests and conducting the hearings and making the decisions on where to make the grants. The legislature will always be subject to cronyism of elected leadership where at least in theory the executive agencies could possibly be more objective and “above” politics in their decisionmaking.

    But honestly, why not devolve transportation matters to the states? Why should Florida pay for Minnesota’s roads?

    • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

      …for pretty much everything the Fed does.

      The point isn’t so much which Federal program is cut. Almost all of them should be, with responsibility pushed back to the States. However, Congress has ceded not only its authority, but its responsibility to review the expenditures of the Executive branch. Congress’ power to “direct” spending should be about reviewing spending habits and ensuring we don’t spend our money on wasteful things like turtle tunnels and bridges to nowhere. And “directed spending” should simply be approved projects requested by the Executive Branch.

      Not sure if that’s what the OP meant, but that’s my take on it.

      • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

        Oversight is different than “directing spending” or in other words, “earmarking.” A lot has been made of the fact that earmarks are frequently inserted at the last minute without any formal process. That’s true, but that is only the worst kind of earmark. Just because specific projects are inserted after committee hearings doesn’t make them any less of an earmark.

        Executive agencies are supposed to be the ones who evaluate the merits of grant applications and direct funds to the most meritorious projects. That is an executive function. The legislature should engage in oversight to ensure there is no abuse.

        Lastly, you are right, for most things that the federal government does, the argument can be made that it should be devolved to the states. Does that mean we shouldn’t make it? Now that the interstate system is built, why can’t the states maintain it?

        • http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com fmaidment

          …are fine, and yes, they should be largely saying which projects should be funded.

          However, that “oversight” responsibility also means they should be involved in stopping projects that shouldn’t be funded. Otherwise, you really have ceded the power of the purse.

          When I say, “direct spending”, I’m not talking about earmarks, and I apologize for my semantic error. I’m talking about saying, “No, you can’t build that project. The last one was an utter failure and we don’t trust you with it.”

  • ss396

    …Congress is not meant to cede spending authority to the Executive Branch. Nor should transportation spending be left to a select few at the Department of Transportation and the committee staff for Transportation and Infrastructure. Requests for funding transportation projects should go through an open and transparent process in Congress, without sway by political affiliation.

    Congress is not meant to usurp spending authority from the States, either. Nor should transportation spending be at the Federal level in the first place. Requests of funding transportation projects should be left to the States and communities, who have a better idea of their priorities than you do. Your self-congratulatory calling for increased transparency is falsely premised. It is the height of arrogance to claim that you are better able to manage States’ affairs than they are.

    Earmarks exemplify the very nanny-statism that we excoriate the Dems for. They are only and ever a monument to the earmarker; they are a corruption. It is bizarre to hear you brag about this.

    • Mark Malcolm

      ‘usurp’ the states with spending, just ‘enticed’ them. Doesn’t the Fed say they’ll give extra dollars to those states who agree to do things the way the Fed (Federal Government) wants and with hold those same dollars if the states don’t agree? I think that’s a little (maybe a lot) crooked, but the states can still turn the Fed down, can’t they? Didn’t Texas do this just recently, say ‘Thank you but no thanks’ on some amount of money or other?

      • ss396

        Texas did, as you point out. Perry could do it in Texas, because there is no direct political threat to him: deep red State, and Senator Hutchison’s “primary to nowhere” immunized him against any meaningful criticism. Not many State Governors are in that position.

        My use of the word ‘usurp’ applies, not to the money, but to the authority of the State or locality; the authority for them to develop their own budget priorities. When Senator Snodgrass directs money to constructing a Civic Center, instead of letting it go to the water project that they’re trying to develop, he has usurped the authority of the State (or municipality, or City, or locality) to decide their own spending priorities. He apparently ‘knows better’ than they do. (All of which begs the question as to why these projects are being considered at the Federal level in the first place!)

        For the178th time, if Senator Snodgrass wants to flog money around at the local level, then he should run for City Council.

      • bk

        If you could opt out of the whole deal it would be different.

      • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

        The federal government attaches a litary of ridiculous requirements to transportation funding and if they don’t obey, they lose it. Which is unacceptable because their citizens pay the federal taxes for it. That’s why the feds just need to get out of the business altogether and let the states run the show on roads, bridges, and tracks.

        • Mark Malcolm

          unless it comes with ‘no strings attached’, imo. If we could get the federal government to stop trying to manipulate the states with our tax dollars, the federal government wouldn’t ‘need’ so much of our tax dollars.

  • http://lightduty.wordpress.com lightduty

    You don’t have to cede spending authority to the WH. You can SPEND LESS.

    If you have necessary spending, then pass in its own bill, or as part of a transportation bill. Worthwhile spending should be easy to defend, right?

    The bottom line is that government spends too much. If you trim the budgets of bills to the bone, then there should be no money to fund the earmarks. And earmarks are used to pass bills that increase the size and scope of government.

    To put your example in a personal context. You’re basically saying “if I don’t run up a credit card bill, my spouse will.” Is that a stance that leads to a fiscally sound household?

  • http://lightduty.wordpress.com lightduty

    Sorry for speaking before reading what you actually said!

    The process you outline is exactly what I would want Congress to do. But there has been talk of Congressmen using your argument (we don’t want the Executive Branch to control spending) to justify earmarks.

    Earmarks are bad. If you believe a project merits Federal funds (and that should be a high bar indeed, these days), then it should be able to stand on its own as a bill. Or at most, grouped with other similar projects in a transportation bill.

    • wattchildress

      The problem with earmarks isn’t just that they’re stuck into other un-related bills. Recent history clearly shows that both Republicans and Democrats load stand-alone transportation bills with pork projects. And what looks like pork to the rest of us is usually hailed as progress in the home district.

      We need transportation spending reform. Don’t spend the money at the federal level. Push unspent dollars back down to the state and local levels. The best thing the federal government can do is set standards so that money is prioritized to first pay for all the costs associated with existing infrastructure. Take care of existing needs first before splurging on more infrastructure.

      That’s the position of Taxpayers for Common Sense. Any leader who adheres to that principal of prioritization would be a hero in my book, regardless of party affiliation.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      ear?mark
      ? ?/???r?m?rk/ Show Spelled[eer-mahrk] Show IPA
      [. . .]
      3. to set aside for a specific purpose, use, recipient, etc.: to earmark goods for export.
      4. to mark with an earmark.

      It doesn’t make it any less of an earmark if Congress “approves” it through a “process.” It is still federal dollars being set aside for a specific purpose. Congress should not be in that business — evaluating the competing merits of different projects should be done by executive agencies, where it needs to be done at all. Politicians are NOT suited to this type of behavior.

  • tngal

    But without the backroom deals and “sway by political affiliation”, they won’t be able to spend (waste) money on signs telling us the road construction (the sign) was paid for by The American Recovery and Whatever It Was Act.

    • earlgrey

      advising people that since the district received furnds from the stimulus package any issues or concerns shoudl be directed to the state government. I found the sign so offfensive i took a picture of it with my iphone, which of course my husband thought was dumb.

      Anyway that sign is still there and it gives me the creeps. Like big brother is watching me.

      • tngal

        big brother use to be satisfied just watc hing you. This has now escalated to groping and taking naked pictures of you. You don’t want to imagine what comes next.

        • earlgrey

          everytime I travel out of my home city’s airport I get pulled aside for “special screening’. I think next time I show up at the airport I’ll sport a burka on my head and a bikini on my body. MIght as well have some fun with this. The only problem with my plan is the weather. A bit chilly for beachwear.

  • http://www.soitgoesintexas.blogspot.com Shannon Work

    Rep. Bachmann and the GOP establishment might agree on principles, but the significant difference will likely be in the COMMITMENT to those principles. I’m not sure I trust the establishment guys farther than I can throw them.

  • wayne2010

    It would appear that the tax compromise is more or less a given, particularly with regard to the extension of unemployment benefits portion of the agreement being politically savvy. But, since there will be no positive impact on the economy until the government gets out of the way, the positive element to this debate is that as the economy worsens and inflation kicks in, the general populous will be turning their attention to where the problem really lies. Less and less people will be concerned about who will be the next American Idol and more will want to know why they can’t make their mortgage payment or put food on the table when they are either working harder for less or not working at all.

    From where I’m sitting, things will get a whole lot worse, and the need for real political change will accelerate. The questions is whether or not it will happen before the dollar and the economy totally collapse?

    Then what?

    Let’s all hope that the political awaking currently in progress across the country will be enough to turn this train around, because we are heading for a cliff and at this writing, the only thing happening is that the train is slowing down, but it isn’t stopping. And, there in lies the problem. Timing is everything!

    My two cents…

    • izoneguy

      Wrong – wayne2010 – There are as many conservatives that are against this tax deal as liberals. The difference is that the MSM won’t point it’s cameras at the conservatives. The snapshot that America sees is a seathing liberal base that is ready to toss Obama under the bus. The conservatives have wanted to toss Obama under the bus since the summer of 2008.

      Yesterday, Obama threw himself under the bus when he let Brother Bill take over the Presidential Podium. We are not afraid of the tax rates going up, because we know that come January we can force a better deal for conservatives on Obama and make what is left of the radical libs in Congress, squeal like pigs.

      • littlel

        Did we not just tell our elected last month we will not stand for backroom deals as usual and continued spending of funds we must borrow–Yet here we are again with Business as usual–this time from the Republicans.
        There had better be a huge number of NO’s pn this from Republican Senators and House members or they will have a long two years!
        We did not vote for more of the same–but that is what we are getting!
        YELL IT OUT PEOPLE–NOOOOOO!!!

        • wayne2010

          OK, maybe you are right, and I hope you are, I’ve called, emailed and sent a letter to my Congressman condemning this “compromise”. My post was simply to point out that we have just begun to move back in the right direction. The Republicans have to learn that now… I don’t believe they have and we will know in the next week won’t we…. I hope i’m wrong and want to be…

          But, we can’t change over night the political culture it took generations to build. This is after all, not new… Jefferson and Madison were fighting the Central back with Adams, Hamilton and George Washington before the Constitution was written. Taxation has always lied at the heart of the American experience…

          • wayne2010

            Hopefully, you understand that I meant excessive taxation, we do after all have representation, though some would argue that we don’t …

            It’s late, I’m tired and shouldn’t be posting if I’m going to be challenged…

  • littlel

    being discussed when Michelle votes or is it?
    This Tax “Deal” is nothing more than another Earmark laden Pork Bill. What happened to “Unemployment extension ONLY if paid for”, or no spending that raises the Deficit–as we were promised by those whom we voted for a month ago.
    Look at who is tapped to head the Approprations Committee–the Republican Prince of Pork. Speaker to Be “Bo” can talk all he wants about the “Clear” understanding his Approp. comm. chair has, it is ACTIONS that matter, not Words.
    So Michell, a NO vote on the Tax Deal is expected from you if you are sticking to your word on Earmarks–a Yes Vote is Business as usual.

  • Common_Cents

    This should be the main push of tea party and conservative candidates.

    Decentralized power and decision making. Each state and local government knows its needs the most and can take the most effective action for appropriate government functions.

    CONgress critters in DC often whine about monopolies in business yet they want to monopolize ruling America from DC. Fail.

  • Pingback: Dean Clara

  • Pingback: Lavelle Gilomen

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: ropa para bebes de moda

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: distillery

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: skype pobierz

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay Los Angeles, CA

  • Pingback: Buy Meratol online

  • Pingback: Randka

  • Pingback: helpful assets

  • Pingback: wedding hairstyle

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: Links Eintragen

  • Pingback: distilled vinegar

  • Pingback: click right here

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: BBCAT

  • Pingback: gameplay

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: foreclosure lawyer

  • Pingback: Payday Loans Online

  • Pingback: distilled definition

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: chair repair

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: vender

  • Pingback: furniture reglue

  • Pingback: คอนโดเอแบค

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: buy wow gold

  • Pingback: go right here

  • Pingback: randka

  • Pingback: Aquariumfilter

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: Students

  • Pingback: luxury white chocolate

  • Pingback: summer football camps texas 2011

  • Pingback: does extended warranty cost dealership

  • Pingback: electric toothbrush holders

  • Pingback: san diego engagement rings

  • Pingback: vacuum cleaners repair

  • Pingback: wilson batting helmets

  • Pingback: sunrise assisted living

  • Pingback: scrapebox list information

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: lcd screen repair

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: http://www.istarsoft.com/imedia-converter-deluxe-for-mac

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: Arkadaslik

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: overseas

  • Pingback: cheap advertisement

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: from this specific source

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: pay day loans

  • Pingback: Steve Kane

  • Pingback: dry cleaners

  • Pingback: continue overlooking this

  • Pingback: find

  • Pingback: ipl Laser Hair Removal Pagewood

  • Pingback: Harlow

  • Pingback: the intensive report

  • Pingback: Eliza

  • Pingback: Charlene

  • Pingback: Rise of the Guardians

  • Pingback: this we seriously regarded

  • Pingback: Rolf Brais

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: Diseño web barato

  • Pingback: Theron Mifflin

  • Pingback: Kip Auer

  • Pingback: Annett Blowe

  • Pingback: Raspberry Ketone Plus review

  • Pingback: look what I discovered

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: coffee bean extract

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: las vegas bankruptcy attorney

  • Pingback: cheap reverse phone lookup

  • Pingback: honda 6500 watt generator

  • Pingback: kit xenon

  • Pingback: uniform supplier in penang

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: distilling brandy

  • Pingback: keto diet

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • itrytobenice

    Congresscritters may hail from a state outside the promised land, but they landed in DC and now think they’ve been elected as part of the Godhead and that their new job is to fix every problem in the country.

    Your road doesn’t have a shoulder? That’s a shame. I’ve got an earmark for that.

    You don’t have an interchange in your area? I’ll get right on it.

    You need a new water treatment plant? Civic center? Swimming pool? You betcha.

    I don’t care if it has all the sunlight in the world on it. You guys are not God. You’re not responsible for spending all our money on the things you think are important. We have state highway departments for our highways. We have city councils for our swimming pools.

    You guys are responsible for the things our local entities can’t handle, like national defense. Yet that never gets any attention. We’ve been at war for years now and all we ever hear about is pork, tax manipulation (seriously, is it really a job of the Federal Gov’t to pay people to buy new appliances?) and intrusion into our freedom and lives (Obamacare anyone?)

    If you guys will do your job and leave our road priorities up to us, we’d all be better off.

  • bk

    While railing today that the government needs to confiscate all the money, two examples he cited were that there is $2T of infrastructure needs and $1/3T needed to bring all schools up to date. People like him feel all that is up to Uncle Sam to worry about. That’s why they want to take away inheritances from people who didn’t earn them, whereas the government apparently did. In the case of infrastructure, he said it’s just unacceptable that there are some spots in the USA where people can’t get broadband internet or cell phone services.

    You just can’t make up the sort of fiction that floats in these idiots’ minds. Unfreakingbelievable.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679
  • cactusjack